Granting of Beingness & Space

In my opinion, Granting of Beingness would be letting something (or somebody) be what it is, and making no efforts to alter it by adding or subtracting to it.

You are not giving it life. It is what it is.

You are not creating energy. What is there is already there.

You are simply becoming aware of it.

By granting beingness you are not changing anything out there. You are simply becoming less judgmental.

Self is merely a label for a combination of locations, movements, particles and considerations. Such label may be applied to other combinations of locations, movements, particles and considerations.

Looking at something as ‘self’ is one step away from seeing what is really there. It is being judgmental to some degree.

There is simply this process of looking and becoming aware of what is there. ‘Who is looking’ is an idea and ‘what is being looked at’ is also an idea. One may use the label ‘orientation point’ for who is looking. and ‘symbol’ for what is being looked at. These things may be considered points or locations in the “space” of awareness. As far as locations go, they are all relative to one another.

Just like there are locations in space, ‘Orientation point’ and ‘symbol’ are points within awareness. There is no absolute point outside of awareness. Locations, or points, orient themselves to one another in a mutual fashion and become aware of each other.

And therefore,

Space is simply there. It is also awareness. So awareness is simply there.

Awareness may focus, or concentrate, itself at any point within itself, and call that an ‘orientation point’.

Awareness may also focus, or concentrate, itself on another point within itself, and call that a ‘symbol’.

Awareness may then differentiate between these two points, and call that a measure or ‘dimension’.

Awareness, or space, shall then consist of points (locations) and measurable properties (dimensions). This may be represented mathematically by scales.

But the awareness, or space, is already there. It is not created. It simply focuses and concentrates upon itself in various ways.

This may be just speculation and nothing may come out of it but I want to explore the parallels between space and awareness.

(1) The electromagnetic wave seems to be a disturbance propagating through the fabric of space. Similarly, a thought wave may be regarded as a disturbance propagating through the fabric of awareness.

(2) The particle form of the electromagnetic wave in the frequency range of light appears as a photon. Similarly, the particle form of a thought wave in a certain range may appear as a thought.

(3) The electromagnetic wave has a whole range of frequencies. Similarly, the thought wave may have a whole range of frequencies too.

(4) The electromagnetic wave alternates between electric and magnetic fields. Similarly, the thought wave must alternate between two fields during its propagation.

(5) What are those two thought fields? These must be the dichotomies. A lower dichotomy may be assumed to be somewhat like electric field. An upper dichotomy may be assumed to be somewhat like magnetic field.

(6) Different ‘frequencies’ or ‘colors’ may be represent by different dichotomies, such as, love-hate, cause-effect. agree-disagree, start-stop, beauty-ugliness, etc. A whole list of these may be found in the book Scientology 8-8008 by Hubbard.

Points 1 to 3 are correct. On point 4 you enter in an unsupported hypothesis – that the thought wave must exist as two fields and say it must be so. I can’t agree.

With EM waves, the magnitudes are related and the propagation planes are orthogonal. The degree of influence of either the E or the M wave depends depends on the orientation of the receipt point (think of having to adjust an older radio antenna for best reception) compared to the originating point. This is truer for low frequency EM but the principal holds for all EM.

Thought frequencies are as yet unknown though LRH defined some wavelengths in Scn 8-80. These most likely were speculative. My own experience with thought propagation is that it is not direction dependent like an EM wave, so I am disinclined to think of it as a planar wave. The focus area of a thought can be pin-point or it can be spread over an area (personal experience backed up by claims of others). Initial speculation would lead me to think of thought as a spherical wave that could be focussed,

The idea of thought being comprised of orthogonal dichotomies is interesting, though. The dissimilarity to EM is that while EM magnitudes have a positive relationship (the bigger the E, the bigger the M), thought waves would (should) tend to have a negative relationship on the dichotomies (the more love, the less hate, etc.). An inverse relationship would mean neither dichotomy could go to zero (a person isn’t all bad or all good), so that would be consistent with the model.

Worth further consideration. The question is could an “antenna” be fashioned to measure it?

Good ideas! I think I need to understand the nature of thought wave (if there is any such thing) first before I worry about antenna. I just wrote down some speculations. I need to sort out all inconsistencies in this model first.

2ndxmer: “An inverse relationship would mean neither dichotomy could go to zero (a person isn’t all bad or all good), so that would be consistent with the model. Worth further consideration. The question is could an “antenna” be fashioned to measure it?”

Chris: 1. Wouldn’t an inverse relationship go to zero every cycle?
2. Do you speculate that there are thought-waves to be received other than the electrical brain-waves? What do you suppose these could be? Emanating from where?

Chris: 1. Wouldn’t an inverse relationship go to zero every cycle?
2. Do you speculate that there are thought-waves to be received other than the electrical brain-waves? What do you suppose these could be? Emanating from where?

2x: Chris, a wave cycle does go to zero twice per wave period but we’re talking about the energy in a flow, a continuance of wave cycles: Your home power cycles 60 times per second; every 16 milliseconds the voltage goes to zero, but there is still power delivered the rest of the wave cycle.

What I’m talking about is the power available from each element of the dichotomies.

Using home voltage as an analogy, you have a typical lamp or computer plugging into 120V (120 volts). Your kitchen range will need 240V. These voltage represent two different magnitudes of the same basic wave.

Love and hate may both be represented by a wave. What we are discussing here is the possibility of these dichotomies having a sort of magnitude relationship, a ratio of sorts: a ratio of love/hate or hate/love. Let’s call the love/hate ratio L/H. Let’s say there is some reasonably finite value to the magnitude of the love or hate one could feel. Call that magnitude x. Then we’d have:

L/H=x where x is finite, i.e. x is a value less than infinity

then for this finite x you’d have

L/x = H

L/x is non zero so H is non-zero. For a large value of L, H would get very small but could never go to zero.

Even putative gods didn’t get away with absolute love: the Christian god was known by early Jews to be a wrathful god; the Hindus have Shiva the destroyer, and Aphrodite was more eros than agape. One can only imagine what would happen if Aphrodite had been scorned. 🙂

Chris:”2. Do you speculate that there are thought-waves to be received other than the electrical brain-waves? What do you suppose these could be? Emanating from where?”

2x: Yes, I’d speculate thought waves to be different from brain electrical activity. I base that speculation on the strong anecdotal evidence of telepathy. I’ll leave that as is, anecdotal evidence, because many people have reported telepathic abilities. Even though that may be as unproveable by current science as the Higgs boson was just a year ago, it is a hypothesis based on observation and experience. And that is a valid starting point for scientific research.

Based on that hypothesis, certain criterion can be formulated that will support the thought model.

One such criterion would be that the thought wave not be simple EM as that would be measurable with existing, sensitive RF receivers. Considering that telepathy has been reported over long distances, that pretty much extinguishes the possibility of low level RF (EM) from being the communication medium.

Now consider another phenomenon: quantum entanglement. One implication of entanglement is that one of the pair of entangled photons will instantaneously respond to a change (modulation) in the other, despite any vast distance that may exist between them. Since this does not fit into the 4 dimension model of space-time, the logical conclusion would be that there is at least one other dimension that the entangled photons would have in common.

A similar conclusion could be reached in the discussion of the means of telepathy – that a dimension apart from space-time is the conduit, the communication medium for telepathy.

Emanating from where? That’s the well discussed and argued subject that I’ll succinctly answer as “the thetan”‘

We seem to be going beyond the concept of thetan here. Thetan has been equated with self. Thetan, or self, seems to be convenient label of some deeper structure. It is this deeper structure we need to investigate.

It is very important here to be grounded in reality. If any of you find me departing from reality, give a whack to my head. 🙂

I think I can now state my understanding of THETAN with much more clarity as follows:

A thetan is not a thing. It is a label applied to a point where all spiritual energies and forces are treated as being concentrated, much like we use the label “center of mass” to a point where all mass of an object is treated to be concentrated for the mathematical application of forces. Please see CENTER OF MASS.

So, underlying the abstract concept of thetan there is an actual structure of energies and forces. This may be what Buddha was describing here: THE STRUCTURE OF “I”.

I wrote earlier:“(4) The electromagnetic wave alternates between electric and magnetic fields. Similarly, the thought wave must alternate between two fields during its propagation.”

Per Wikipedia“Electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) is a form of energy emitted and absorbed by charged particles, which exhibits wave-like behavior as it travels through space. EMR has both electric and magnetic field components, which stand in a fixed ratio of intensity to each other, and which oscillate in phase perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy and wave propagation. In vacuum, electromagnetic radiation propagates at a characteristic speed, the speed of light.”

Any wave must have two component, even if they are as simple as UP and DOWN. I do not know what these components will be for a thought wave, so at this moment it will be a matter of speculation in terms of dichotomies. At the moment I am not so much concerned with the origination or receipt points. I want to look at the wave itself to determine its character. An EM wave from a point source would be spherical. The sun sends out light in all directions.

As far E and M fields go, a changing E-field produces the M-field, and a changing M-field produces an E-field. Is there a similar parallel possible for a thought wave, I wonder.

Even physicists seem unable to visualize space. You will see 2 dimensional grids — flat mind you — with an OUTWARD bulge — away from a bit of matter such as a star — drawn to show how gravity bends space. This is an incorrect model – space seems to be a dynamic thing which is expanding faster than it is being drawn into existing matter. Space is dynamic, it is omnipresent, and for all intents and purposes seems to be invisible to us.

Vin, remember that heat (molecular vibration) is transmitted two ways: by conduction (a very local, 3D effect), and by infrared (EM). I believe we could call EM a set of dimensions since the E and M waves maintain orthogonality between themselves. However, I do not believe you could heat a dimension as it should really be lumped in with EM.

What you say here is also correct. I was thinking in terms of dimensions that are common to the physical universe: there could be a seemingly infinite number of heat dimensions – as many as there are heat sources, but on a universal scale we can satisfy ourselves with only 3 spatial dimensions plus time (until we have to think relativistically).

So, as far as universal dimensions, 3-space and time are the primary agreed-upon ones. Heat would not follow in the same category. The entropic trail would be measured by measuring the EM infrared signature. That might hint at time’s trail, but still does not give it the quality of a dimension; it is still just EM.

I have commented before how I would put gravity into the realm of a dimension as it can bend space-time. Your contention was that gravity was produced by mass and so was an effect – just as I’m saying heat is just an effect.

The thing I’d add about my argument for gravity being a dimension is my speculation that a gravity unit is generated by a zero-point in space and that at least one such zero-point is associated with each particle in the universe. The effect of concentrated mass is to sum the individually tiny zero-point vectors.

The current think on gravity is that there is a single point of focus of all the gravitational lines stemming from an inertial mass (a large mass). This supports the idea of gravity coming from a zero-point. If all the zero-points in an inertial mass can be considered as a single zero-point, does that not imply a dimension of zero-points? A dimension that is linked to 3-space at all points and yet only one?

The current string theory model suggests a folded 6-space associated with every particle. This folded 6-space is what I would suggest form a compelling argument for the zero-point and, at that zero-point a small mass that then has the mass to volume ratio of a black hole. It would be that tiny black hole that warps it’s local 3-space into a 6-space manifold.

2ndxmr: “So, as far as universal dimensions, 3-space and time are the primary agreed-upon ones. Heat would not follow in the same category. The entropic trail would be measured by measuring the EM infrared signature. That might hint at time’s trail, but still does not give it the quality of a dimension; it is still just EM.”

Heat is basically a general perception of moving and vibrating micro particles. It is the kinetic energy whose dimensions are “mass. length^2 / time^2” EM wave produces heat only when it interacts with matter.

Entropy is property of the system at equilibrium. There is certain kinetic energy among micro particles at equilibrium, which is bound to the equilibrium state. It cannot be converted to work. That is how I understand it.

I do not understand what you mean by “The entropic trail would be measured by measuring the EM infrared signature.”

Consider that the universe is expanding and has been since the big bang. For simplicity, let’s assume expansion was spherical. The energy that is measured at the surface of a sphere follows an inverse-square law relationship to the radius of the sphere. Thus the radius we measure from and the energy we measure can tell us a lot about the source of the energy.

The universe is expanding and the entropy is increasing: the delta of energies between sphere radii is decreasing.

By scanning different radii we can still measure the delta T and that is the EM IR signature I was talking about. Thus the delta T(emp) shows the entropic trail.

“However, I do not believe you could heat a dimension as it should really be lumped in with EM.”

Time to blame the transcriptionist. 🙂

That should have read “However, I do not believe you could have heat as a dimension as it should really be lumped in with EM.” i.e. IR is just a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and so is part of that dimension set.

There are basic four dimensions of length, width, height and time. Then there are other dimensions derived from them, such as, velocity, energy, temperature, etc.

I think mass is a derived dimension also, but I do not fully understand the relationship. Acceleration is a derived dimension. Mass times acceleration gives us force. So, force is a derived dimension too.

Mass and gravity have been quite mysterious. But before I can understand MASS, I need to understand ENERGY fully. Heat is energy, but it is a function of mass and velocity. So it is a derived form of energy. The purest form of energy seems to be the electromagnetic energy.

So, energy itself seems to have a dimension in the sense of degrees of derivation or condensation. Maybe mass is at the upper end of this dimension… and at the lower end is space.

Try considering time as a unit of a condensation cycle. The cycle would be: probabalistic state -> condensed state -> probabalistic state…

A law similar to Newtons 1st law (roughly: a body continues in a direction until acted on by outside forces) would apply to the cycle.

This would imply that the next condensed state will be the same as the last until some outside force changes it. That would give an apparent solidity to the particles but would allow for phenomena such as the double slit experiment where particle/wave duality is evident.

In a discrete model; mass, time, and velocity might be accounted for by the ratio of appearance cycles to tP. With c as not only as a speed limit but the standard rule whereby EM cycles every Planck time(tP) as the computational clock speed of the universe.

Maybe the electromagnetic wave forms a ripple in the fabric of space. As these ripples are compressed (higher frequencies, smaller wavelengths), then some sort of condensation starts to occur, and the wave may start to appear as a particle. I wonder what is the frequency associated with a photon!

A photon may also be a form of standing electromagnetic wave of any frequency. So, condensation may also occur in the form of standing waves, and not necessarily because of higher frequencies.

Or, maybe it is a combination of both… a photon could be an electromagnetic standing wave of very high frequency.

I believe that is precisely right: electromagnetic energy does not flow ON the space ether, it is the proagated movement OF the space ether, just as a wave flows on water. The way the orthogonal components come about is the same as earthquake waves: the disturbance that sets up the wave causes one wave set due to expansion (like a bubble forming in gelatin would push out in all directions, or like the P wave of an earthquake) and another wave that runs in the direction of propagation, the earthquake S wave or the wave train we see in water.

So are we now saying that space has substance which can be excited? That what we perceive as EM is excited space?

If so, what is exciting it? . . . going in circles? . . . or deeper layers of excitation?

Or that EMR is not perceivable but excited space is perceivable and the EMR is exciting it?

What is there? . . . and what is EMF?

EMF is simply a differential of EM from one location with reference to another location. A disturbance in one location seeks equilibrium and I am using seeks liberally. It propagates until its energy equalizes.

Yet the vacuum of space seems to present no resistance to the mass-less photon. It’s great to create analogies and all about garden hoses and water and waves on the pond and all but at its quantum, this doesn’t seem to work like me pushing my car that ran out of gas.

We’re getting near the bottom of the rabbit hole. I expect though that the mathematics will suck us through the bottom and out to the side built around the root of minus 1. (The imaginary mirror of this universe.)

Why do you think it is unknowable? It is expected to be the Higgs field. It may be difficult to know as it is so omnipresent that it makes finding a reference point difficult (some point of lower of higher density of the field, or absence of the field) but I expect that enough circumstantial evidence will arise that we’ll be able to accept the presence of it until such time as we can provably measure it.

Dear Mr. Fractal,
In this universe we have galaxies, solar systems, planets and moons to name just the visible, coarser spinning or roatating objects.

Science figured out the rules of such objects at an early age. Then we jumped to the realm of the atom and found that the mathematics of expression of motion and energy were quite similar but had to be refined to incorporate the speed of light. To put things in perspective, the energy in a speeding baseball is proportionate to the square of its velocity, just as is the energy in a photon, but the photons velocity is c.

All I’m getting at is that from the largest (galaxies) to the smallest (elementary particles) there are enough similarities that it is very worthwhile seeking the solution to something like quantum mechanics by using analogues of the coarser parts of the universe.

The thing you really have to wrap your wits around is this concept that space is a something, not a nothing. That something will have properties that will define the propagation velocity through it, just like the speed of sound is defined by the temperature and pressure of the air that the sound is propagating through.

Now if space is a something, a kind of fluid if you will, then what we observe in propagation phenomena can give us insights into the nature of the fluid. As an example, we see light propagated as massless packets of energy that can yet transfer momentum. This seeming contradiction becomes understandable if the EM wave is really just space being compressed and relaxed in the manner I wrote above.

Or possibly the orders of magnitude of this universe, though great and small from our frame of reference, are yet either too small or too large to make this cross-section of the fractal zoom we call the physical universe meaningful?

I have been working with these orders of magnitude and there is absolutely (and I use absolutely in the absolute sense) nothing in the human experience which would help us comprehend both ends of one of these large scales at the same time. Nothing in our experience will allow us a tactile feeling for these orders of magnitude. Maybe in this is a clue or direction?

Hubbard from COHA (R2- 21: GRANTING OF BEINGNESS):
“Dependent upon the orientation for its location and to some degree for its life is the ‘symbol’. A symbol is an object which has mass, meaning and mobility. A symbol locates itself, if it does so at all, by the orientation point. It regards the orientation point as a continual source point and itself as a continual effect point of that source point. So long as one can create life, he more or less considers himself an orientation point. And as soon as he is convinced he cannot create life in any degree, he becomes to that degree a symbol.”

.

I see it as follows:
(1) ‘Creating life’ is primarily the ‘action of considering’.

(2) One is creating life when one is knowingly considering. One may think of oneself as being an orientation point then. This action is creating the life of the Orientation Point.

(3) When one looks at how one is being considered by others then one may think of oneself as a symbol. One is then creating the life of the Symbol. This is the case with celebrities.

(4) There is no absolute orientation point that would provide a ‘symbol’ with some absolute meaning.

(5) The life of a ‘symbol’ would mean how it evolves through time. Again, there is no absolute orientation point as the basis for the life of the symbol.

(6) The orientation point does not remain the same. It is continually changing as the considerations change.

(7) Location and considerations are relative to each other and mutual.

(8) There are considerations in awareness just like there are locations in space.

Hubbard from COHA (R2- 21: GRANTING OF BEINGNESS):
“The granting of beingness is a complexity of the communication formula in that we have broadly added space rather than linear distance and have introduced the idea of a continuing orientation point and a continuing symbol. The velocity of the communication formula is expanded to continuing velocities. And we have entered directly from the communication formula into our first understanding of Time and therefore Survival. It’s the symbol which is surviving in minute gradients of time and the orientation point which is timeless but which determines the time frame of that space. As a practical example, most preclears consider the childhood home an orientation point and themselves a symbol of that orientation point. Where a preclear has lost too many orientation points successively he begins to consider himself a symbol of a symbol. “

.

I see it as follows::
(1) The granting of beingness is looking at things as they are without being judgmental.

(2) ‘Orientation point’ is the consideration of being the source of considerations.

(3) ‘Symbol’ is the consideration of being considered by some ‘orientation point.’

(4) Communication is basically recognition of what is there. The ‘distance’ of communication formula disappears when that recognition takes place, as the ‘source’ and ‘receipt’ points merge together.

(5) Communication formula becomes complex to the degree filters are introduced to ‘look through’ and the actual recognition is altered.

Godel would have a tough time with that. It looks complete. The only distinction I’ll make is that #8 is true to the degree an “orientation point” has become associated with the physical universe. That condition would be required for consistency.

I have recall of times I existed independent of a body for brief or lengthy periods. Others have similar memories. This tends to form a compelling certainty that one is different from MEST. If this universe suddenly disappeared, I do not know what would happen with the “orientation points”, how well they could exist without a universe. Some could, some would be so messed up they’d probably attach to anything they perceived as massy – which would be each other. – as the closest thing to the MEST they lost.

(1) If universe is a set of everything that exists, then ‘orientation point’ must be a member of that set because it exists.

(2) One may feel that one is independent of the body, or independent of the universe, but that could be the result of a consideration. Then one would not be independent of the universe of consideration.

According to Buddha (and this is very real to me): The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.

According to Buddha (and this is very real to me): The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.

2ndxmr: The argument is nullified by its own premise.

What you are regarding as premise is not a premise per the definition of premise. Besides, I think that logic has its limitations. Looking penetrates much father than Logic.

Hubbard from COHA (R2- 21: GRANTING OF BEINGNESS):
“The concept in some religions of God being everywhere and every place at the same time is a direct and overt effort to loose the worshipper by taking from him a finite position for his orientation point. The processing of the granting of beingness is more complex and therefore less effective than using the communication formula in its simpler form. It is well within the attention of an auditor, and the problems involving it should, to some degree, be resolved with the preclear. The preclear has many times sought to give life to something such as a dying ally or pet or enterprise and has failed to bring it to life. Resultingly he has become convinced that he cannot grant life. But senior to this granting of life is the mechanical matter of orientation point and symbol.”

.

I see it as follows:
(1) There is awareness ‘everywhere’ like there is space everywhere. The idea of ‘God’ may refer to this ‘field of awareness’ and not necessarily to some point of awareness.

(2) The basic orientation point of most people is the body because one usually identifies oneself with some physical/mental idea of ‘self’.

(3) A secondary orientation point is THAT which a person believes to be orienting his/her existence as ‘self’. He usually regards this orientation point as some ‘God Self’.

(4) The processing of the granting of beingness can be very effective when one works on being less and less judgmental and seeing things as they are.

(5) Communication formula should be employed to perceive ‘things as they are’ without any filters.

(6) Any effort to give life involves the ‘activity of consideration.’

(7) New consideration cannot nullify existing consideration. They will end up not working due to this conflict.

(8) New considerations not working will convince any person that he/she cannot grant life.

Hubbard from COHA (R2- 21: GRANTING OF BEINGNESS):
“A multitude of processes can be applied with profit to this subject. One of the simplest would be to demand of the preclear, ‘Where are you from?’ and then continue to repeat this question on and on and on, no matter what answer the preclear gave, until the preclear replies that he is from right where he is. At which time the auditor changes the question to ‘Where is that?’ And to any answer the preclear gives, again asks ‘Where is that? ’ until the preclear ceases to locate himself by his environment and then ceases to locate himself by his body and by himself and comes to the realization that he is exactly where he says he is and no other place.”

.

This is how I see it:
(1) Hubbard is trying to get the person to realize that one locates oneself by one’s consideration.

(2) This process seems to be evaluative, as it is looking for a specific answer based on some theory, which the person is not aware of.

(3) A better approach may be to simply train the person to look non-judgmentally and without resistance, as accomplished by KHTK exercises.

Hubbard from COHA (R2- 21: GRANTING OF BEINGNESS):
“The other-determinism to self-determinism course is marked by the fact that he is first nowhere, then where old orientation points and present locations tell him where he is, and then where his body tells him where he is, and then where he seems to be because he can see certain things, to the final realization that he is where he is by postulate and by that alone.”

.

Here we have repetitive questioning to force a realization. The effort here is also involved in defining for the person what he/she really is.

This is a bad approach, as it gets a person guessing and speculating all over the place. It can build up unhandled mass pretty quickly and the person is likely to go into apathy. An apathetic person will simply respond robotically and will accept whatever he is told. This is harmful. A simple approach would be to just explain the theory and discuss it.

Hubbard from COHA (R2- 21: GRANTING OF BEINGNESS):
“This will exteriorize a preclear if continued long enough. All other processes are only a covert level of this process. He can be made to spot spots which he has considered orientation points, such as the childhood home, and then remedy havingness. He can be asked why the environment is there, and for every answer simply ask again why what he is looking at is there. Or this can be run as the third step of Procedure 30, which is what it is. As the third step of Procedure 30, Granting of Beingness is run in this fashion, ‘Who would grant beingness to …?’ And in the blank may be placed psychosomatics, letters, cats, dogs, kings and coal heavers or anything the auditor might think of, each time until the preclear replies without communication lag.”

.

This seems to be a less evaluative process, since no specific answer is being looked for.

Hubbard from COHA (R2-26: REMEDY OF LAUGHTER):
“The earliest known psychotherapy consisted of getting a patient to laugh. Laughter is rejection. A preclear being continually inflowed upon by the physical universe at length may find it difficult to reject anything. Getting him to reject something could be made an auditing goal. The best manifestation of this is laughter.”

.
Laughter is looking at something already familiar from a new viewpoint that makes it both surprising and revealing. I am not sure if all laughter is rejection. One may reject what is revealed. But one may accept it too.

pre·dict [pri-dikt]
verb (used with object)
1. to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.

To predict is usually to foretell with precision of calculation, knowledge, or shrewd inference from facts or experience: The astronomers can predict an eclipse; it may, however, be used without the implication of underlying knowledge or expertise: I predict she’ll be a success at the party.

Word Origin & History
1623, “to foretell, prophesy,” from L. prædicatus, pp. of prædicere “foretell, advise, give notice,” from præ- “before” + dicere “to say” (see diction). Scientific sense of “to have as a deducible consequence” is recorded from 1961. Prediction is recorded from 1561, from L. prædictio “a foretelling,” from prædictus. Predictably “as could have been predicted” is attested from 1914.

When a person’s present time becomes thicker, that person begins to look like an amazing fortune-teller to another person whose present time is not as thick.

Just day before yesterday, those engineers at JPL, NASA, etc., did what is for me the unimaginable by landing the “Curiosity” explorer on Mars. These men and women together predicted 100’s of thousands of events and solved each event to a satisfactory result years before the culmination of it happening, and that now continues into the future with the rover which is and for all purposes should remain operational for quite a while. None of these problems that they solved were even things I would have wondered about with hope of understanding let alone having as a problem to solve.

This type of prediction and competence should be applied to the politics of earth. This would really be granting beingness!

Not sure why you would say that the mental cannot be tamed by control. There are myriad objective examples of the variations of control that people exhibit over their mental state and hence their physical state.

In a universe of dimensions, we seem to be able to move around from one dimension to another as in “here” and “there.” But in the dimension of time, we seem to be able to experience a certain thickness of it which we refer to as present but which is really all in the past. But then, beyond a certain thickness, we begin referring to events as no longer in the present but in the past. And we refer to predicted events not yet come to pass as prediction.

In this phenomena and in the other phenomena of dimensions are wondrous mysteries!

It will be interesting to learn more specifically about our participation in the Higgs Field as that begins to unravel. Speaking of predictions, It is my hope that the future of Consciousness doesn’t follow the assured extinction of homo sapiens.

Mankind as it currently exists on Earth must evolve to a more cooperative state of enlightened participation with his environment or simply vanish as just one more of a hundred trillion trillions of species that have come into and out of existence.

According to my understanding, a dimension is degrees of something that may be perceived as a scale. The following physical dimensions can be described this way: (a) length (b) width (c) height (d) time.

Okey-dokey — When an event occurs, time must pass before the news as perception of that event can be perceived.

By my current calculations, and considering small measures of time to be important amounts of time, LOTS of time must pass before we know about events even within our own bodies or within the same immediate space as ourselves.

When we begin to consider astronomic distances then this lagging news of time becomes very apparent. However, at the microscopic level, even more enormous amounts of time are passing to such a degree that every action that we take in life is lagging very far behind the events that they respond to.

The only benefit that I see here is from doing things without any reason whatsoever, and that includes laughter.

Laughter is looking from a totally new viewpoint which may reveal a surprising aspect of something already familiar. Laughter has nothing to do with rejection per se. It has more to do with ‘thinking outside the box’. When one has seen everything, one can amuse oneself only by discovering new viewpoints.

A person may not be able to laugh because his attention is stuck elsewhere and he is unable to look. Underlying all problems and mysteries is the inability to look.

muddy waters these. Attention. Your buddhist take is that there is not anything paying attention, the focused attention IS both the attent-or and attent-ee. Right? But the word attention doesn’t give it up to this concept so easy…